Karrigan v. Valentine, 41369
| Decision Date | 16 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41369,41369 |
| Citation | 184 Kan. 783,339 P.2d 52 |
| Parties | Philip KARRIGAN, Appellant, v. Harry E. VALENTINE and L. F. Valentine, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Courts define libel as libel per se and libel per quod.
2. Words libelous per se are words which are defamatory in themselves and which intrinsically, by their very use, without innuendo and the aid of extrinsic proof, import injury and damage to the person concerning whom they are written. They are words from which malice is implied and damage is conclusively presumed to result.
3. Where libel per se is claimed, the question presented is whether the words on their face, without explanation or extrinsic proof, would necessarily, or as a natural and immediate consequence, cause damage.
4. Whether a newspaper article is libelous per se is a question of law for the court to determine.
5. Words libelous per quod are words ordinarily not defamatory, that is, they are words the injurious character of which appears only in consequence of extrinsic facts, and which become actionable only when special damage is proved. Thus, words not defamatory per se may become actionable per quod, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
6. In order to recover for a libel per quod the special damage and injury resulting therefrom must be expressly alleged and proved, and in order to support a recovery evidence of the damage and injury must be definite and substantial, not fictitious or imaginary.
7. In a libel action against the publishers of a newspaper, allegations of the petition, together with the published article, are examined and considered, and, all as fully set forth in the opinion, it is held: (1) Count one of the petition fails to state a cause of action for libel per se, and (2) count two of the petition states a cause of action for libel per quod.
John Berglund, Clay Center, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
W. M. Beall, Clay Center, argued the cause, and H. L. Sheppeard, Clay Center, was with him on the brief, for appellees.
This is an action against the publishers of a newspaper to recover for an alleged libel.
Defendants' demurrer to the petition, on the ground that pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, was sustained.
Plaintiff has appealed.
The nature of the case and the questions presented are such that we consider it necessary to set out the petition in full. Omitting caption and signature, it reads:
'Count One.
'The plaintiff, Philip Karrigan, for Count One of his cause of action against the defendants, stated:
'I.
newspaper.
'II.
'The defendants are residents of Clay Center, Clay County, Kansas; their true address is the same and as copartners they do business as the Clay Center Publishing Company, at the same address by publishing a newspaper, 'The Clay Center Dispatch', which they edit and manage and distribute in the general territory of Clay Center, Kansas, which includes Bala, Kansas community.
'III.
'The defendants, on the 3rd day of November, 1956, published in said Clay Center Dispatch certain false, defamatory, malicious, and libelous language of and concerning this plaintiff and his relations with a woman of ill repute as follows, to-wit:
'By reason of the said publication of the above false, scandalous and defamatory libel by the defendants, this plaintiff has been brought into public scandal and disgrace and greatly injured in his good name to his damage in the sum of $25,000 and that by reason of the maliciousness of said acts, the defendants should be required to pay punitive damages in the sum of $25,000.
'Wherefore, plaintiff prays that he have and recover of and from the defendants and each of them the sum of $25,000 as compensatory damages and the further sum of $25,000 for punitive damages, and his costs herein.
'Count Two.
'The plaintiff, Philip Karrigan for Count Two of his cause of action against the defendants states:
'I.
'That he adopts each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs I, II, and III of Count One hereof as fully as though the paragraphs were herein set forth.
'II.
'By defendants' false, negligent, scandalous and defamatory public charge of and concerning this plaintiff as set forth in Paragraph III of Count One of this cause of action, the defendants and said published article meant, and the many readers of the article understood that the plaintiff was married to one Betty Ellen Carpenter, a woman of ill repute and who has given birth to four children out of wedlock. That no announcement of this marriage had ever been made in this vicinity where said parties live; that said plaintiff also has three children by said and each of them the sum of $25,000 as compensatory damages and the further sum of $25,000 for punitive damages, and his costs herein.
'Count Two.
'The plaintiff, Philip Karrigan for Count Two of his cause of action against the defendants states:
'I.
'That he adopts each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs I, II, and III of Count One hereof as fully as though the paragraphs were herein set forth.
'II.
'By defendants' false, negligent, scandalous and defamatory public charge of and concerning this plaintiff as set forth in Paragraph III of Count One of this cause of action, the defendants and said published article meant, and the many readers of the article understood that the plaintiff was married to one Betty Ellen Carpenter, a woman of ill repute and who has given birth to four children out of wedlock. That no announcement of this marriage had ever been made in this vicinity where said parties live; that said plaintiff also has three children by said Betty Ellen Carpenter and that he is not a bachelor by any means and has apparently been married to Betty Ellen Carpenter for at least eight years as the records of the District Court of Clay Center, Kansas show that she was divorced on the 3rd day of May, 1944, from Hubert B. Ciepluch, then remarried to Warren Gene Kamphous on the 5th day of June, 1944, and again divorced from said Kamphous on the 9th day of October, 1946; that according to the above court records, no children were born of said marriage.
'III
'That said defendants, having full knowledge and/or should have had full knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff was not married to the said Betty Ellen Carpenter as aforesaid, willfully and maliciously published and circulated the foregoing described libelous article to lead the subscribers of said newspaper and the public generally to believe said article, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gomez v. Hug
...are two types of slander, slander per se and slander per quod. In that slander is oral libel, what is said in Karrigan v. Valentine, 184 Kan. 783, 787, 339 P.2d 52 (1959), is " 'Words libelous per se are words which are defamatory in themselves and which intrinsically, by their very use, wi......
-
Marcus v. Swanson
... ... for his or her own attorney fees."); Karrigan v ... Valentine , 184 Kan. 783, 788, 339 P.2d 52 (1959) (noting ... "in passing" ... ...
-
Brown v. Kitterman
...Goodman, 57 Ariz. 216, 112 P.2d 860; McBride v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 187 (applying Florida law); Karrigan v. Valentine, 184 Kan. 783, 339 P.2d 52; Axton Fisher Tobacco Co. v. Evening Post Co., 169 Ky. 64, 183 S.W. 269, L.R.A.1916E, 667; Campbell v. Post Pub. Co., 94 Mo......
-
Knight v. Neodesha, Kan., Police Dept.
...refusal to treat plaintiff, house burned down) and this is particularly true in light of the posture of the case. Karrigan v. Valentine, 184 Kan. 783, 788, 339 P.2d 52 (1959). Apparently, the district judge's dismissal of plaintiff's charge of defamation was based on authority of Schulze v.......